Air traffic control chaos raises questions about UK passenger rights
When Donal Mullane flew from London to Italy over the long August bank holiday weekend it was meant to be a short city break in Florence. But on Monday, when he was due to return, the UK’s air traffic control system all but shut down. Like thousands of other passengers caught up in the resulting travel chaos after a technical failure grounded hundreds of flights, the 59-year-old had to wait days before getting home, eventually touching back down at Heathrow on Thursday afternoon. Mullane, who works in financial services in London, now has to go through the drawn-out process of claiming a refund from British Airways to cover the extra expenses incurred on accommodation and food. He said he was determined to ensure he is not left “out of pocket”. But what he won’t get back is the hours spent trying to rebook his flight via overworked call centres, nor is he entitled to compensation for lost earnings after his employer informed him his three-day absence from work would be treated as unpaid leave. “I have found the whole incident incredibly frustrating,” said Mullane. The outage at National Air Traffic Services (Nats) last Monday was the worst in more than a decade and led to the cancellation of more than 2,000 flights over the past five days, with many more delayed. While the exact cause is still being investigated — the suspected trigger is a flight plan message that the system did not recognise — airlines left dealing with the chaos are calling for a reform of compensation rules. It has also led to a wider debate about consumer protection for air passengers and whether the aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, should be given greater powers. Airlines have been left facing a bill as high as GBP100m, according to some estimates, because passengers are allowed to claim the costs of extra accommodation and living expenses incurred as a result of a flight being cancelled. In contrast Nats, which handles more than 2mn flights a year, said as it had an “obligation to ensure air traffic safety” it could by law “take appropriate measures to reduce traffic volumes when needed without incurring financial penalties.”<br/>
https://portal.staralliance.com/cms/news/hot-topics/2023-09-04/general/air-traffic-control-chaos-raises-questions-about-uk-passenger-rights
https://portal.staralliance.com/cms/logo.png
Air traffic control chaos raises questions about UK passenger rights
When Donal Mullane flew from London to Italy over the long August bank holiday weekend it was meant to be a short city break in Florence. But on Monday, when he was due to return, the UK’s air traffic control system all but shut down. Like thousands of other passengers caught up in the resulting travel chaos after a technical failure grounded hundreds of flights, the 59-year-old had to wait days before getting home, eventually touching back down at Heathrow on Thursday afternoon. Mullane, who works in financial services in London, now has to go through the drawn-out process of claiming a refund from British Airways to cover the extra expenses incurred on accommodation and food. He said he was determined to ensure he is not left “out of pocket”. But what he won’t get back is the hours spent trying to rebook his flight via overworked call centres, nor is he entitled to compensation for lost earnings after his employer informed him his three-day absence from work would be treated as unpaid leave. “I have found the whole incident incredibly frustrating,” said Mullane. The outage at National Air Traffic Services (Nats) last Monday was the worst in more than a decade and led to the cancellation of more than 2,000 flights over the past five days, with many more delayed. While the exact cause is still being investigated — the suspected trigger is a flight plan message that the system did not recognise — airlines left dealing with the chaos are calling for a reform of compensation rules. It has also led to a wider debate about consumer protection for air passengers and whether the aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, should be given greater powers. Airlines have been left facing a bill as high as GBP100m, according to some estimates, because passengers are allowed to claim the costs of extra accommodation and living expenses incurred as a result of a flight being cancelled. In contrast Nats, which handles more than 2mn flights a year, said as it had an “obligation to ensure air traffic safety” it could by law “take appropriate measures to reduce traffic volumes when needed without incurring financial penalties.”<br/>
